Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/20/1992CITY COUNCIL 20 JANUARY 1992 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 20 January 1992, at 7:30 p.m., at South Burlington High School. Members Present: Michael Flaherty, Chairman; John Dinklage, William Cimonetti, Robert Chittenden, James Condos Also Present: Charles Hafter, City Manager; Sid Poger, The Other Paper; Margaret Picard, City Clerk/Treasurer; Albert Audette, Street Department; Ed Blake, Chittenden Water District; William Szymanski, City Engineer; Stephen Dengler, Al Tremblay, Libby & David Taber, Hank & Demi Fischer, Joe Jabour, Ralph Trosa, Sam Hemingway, Andy Griffiths, Roy Bushey, Pat Myette, Marvin Novak, Royce Irwin, Peg Strait, Frank Lidral, Phil Larocque, Marc Roy, Yolande Turmel, Bill Farley, Bill Bright, S. Ahern, George Dunbar, Dennis Johnson, Bob Dyan, Liz Griffiths; Fred Moody, Chittenden Regional Solid Waste District 1. Comments & Questions from the Public (not related to Agenda Items): Mr. Johnson raised the question of safety on the Poor Farm Rd. bridge. He said it is especially dangerous for small cars. Vehicles have been losing control coming off the bridge, and there is evidence of accidents. Mr. Audette said Williston is supposed to be putting in a new piece of planking. Mrs. Griffiths asked what happened to the blinking light at the Shamrock Rd./Airport Dr. intersection. Mr. Audette said it was taken out by a motorist and is being fixed, Mr. Bushey noted the speed sign is also gone. He said there is no room for motorists to go except into the pole which was hit again Saturday. 2. Consideration of decision to proceed with creation of a special assessment district for sewer service construction in Country Club Estates: Mr. Hafter said he had met with residents and there had been a vote taken on the sewer. The results showed 31 in favor, 19 opposed. Mr. Cimonetti noted this is an advisory vote and that the Council would have to go through the decision making process. Mr. Hafter noted there would have to be a vote by the community in the spring regarding the special assessment for the project. Mr. Hafter said the total cost has now been estimated at $600,000. This cost would be shared by the general public, the residents of Country Club Estates, and the John Belter new housing project. The city would front the money and then collect the other shares through a special assessment. He estimated that a Country Club Estates resident with a house assessed at $100,000 value would pay about $400 per year. Mr. Cimonetti asked what would happen if the voters turn down the bond issue. Mr. Hafter said they city could come back with another vote. Mr. Cimonetti noted that even if the voters approved the project the City Council would still have to decide whether to go ahead. Mr. Griffiths asked if it wasn't already approved by the voters. Mr. Hafter said it was but figures have changed because of the circumstances of the Belter project. Mr. Cimonetti added that if the Belter project were to go through, there would be no cost to the city and Country Club Estates residents for the pump station. Mr. Tabor said Country Club Estates is a very small development and he felt it was very expensive for each of the residents. Mr. Flaherty replied that this is how sewering has been done in other parts of the city. Mr. Tabor noted there would also be a cost to hook up to the sewer. He then asked if roads would be rebuilt. Mr. Flaherty said they would be repaired and repaved and that the city would pay the full cost of that. Mr. Ahern noted they have a 25-30 year old neighborhood with aging septic systems. At times you can smell sewage coming from several homes. He felt the cost was a small investment compared to what could be coming down the road. Residents felt they didn't want to be at the mercy of the Belter project. One person asked if it wouldn't be cheaper to hook up to the Air National Guard pumping station which already exists. Mr. Hafter said the City will look into that alternative. Mr. Johnson expressed concern that in making their estimates the engineers didn't do any sampling on the cross streets where, he said, there is solid ledge. He felt the project would be much more expensive than the estimate. Mr. Hafter said they city would check on this. Mr. Hemingway asked what happens if the city finds additional costs or lower costs. Mr. Flaherty said the city usually borrows only what is needed. The authorization would be for "up to" a certain amount. Mr. Hafter added that the city can't arbitrarily increase an amount. Members felt they didn't want to make a decision until they find out about the possible ledge and about the Air Guard pumping station. They felt that if nothing changes from the figures and plans presented tonight, they would be willing to go ahead with a ballot item in the spring. Mr. Griffiths asked if the gas company has indicated they will come into Country Club Estates. Mr. Hafter said they are coming to the Air Guard and have said if enough residents are interested they will go into Country Club Estates. Another resident asked what would be the schedule for the road if the sewer project doesn't go through. Mr. Audette said it is in the 5-year plan and he estimated 2- 3 years for the project. 3. Presentation from Village of Essex Junction on Proposed Changes to CWD Voting Procedures: Mr. Dunbar noted that Essex Junction doesn't have a vote in CWD although they purchase 40% of the water CWD sells. He said that Essex Junction would like an independent membership on the CWD Board and are asking for South Burlington's support on this. Essex Junction is currently represented by Essex Town, and over the past few years there have been so many important things going on that Essex Junction feels they want to have input. Mr. Blake noted that if the CWD board approved this it would have to go to the legislature for approval of a charter change. Mr. Cimonetti noted that Essex Junction residents can run for the Board seat as CWD representative. Mr. Dunbar agreed but stressed that person still represents the Town of Essex. Mr. Szymanski said he didn't see a problem with the current system. He said all the representatives have been from the Village of Essex Junction. He felt the system had worked well. Mr. Dunbar noted that because they pay 40% of the water costs they would have had to pay 40% of the Milton plant had that vote gone through. They felt they deserved representation when so much was at stake. He added that Jericho, which uses only 1% and would only have had to pay 1% of the Milton plant, had a vote. Mr. Flaherty said the Council will talk with Peter Jacob, the city's representative to CWD. 4. Report from Fred Moody, General Manager, Regional Solid Waste Management District: Mr. Moody gave members sample ballot articles for the March election. He noted there will be a public hearing on 26 February to discuss the articles. They are asking for $6,600,000 to construct the interim landfill and the interim recycling facility. This would be repaid through user fees not by taxes. He anticipated that construction would begin this summer and finish in the fall. There is still no word from the legislature on whether current landfills will be given an extended deadline. Mr. Hafter noted that the District will support allowing those with room left in landfills to keep the landfills open. Mr. Moody said Article II of ballot items would authorize the District to enter into an agreement with the host town of Williston and Article III is a non-binding referendum on such things as licensing haulers, mandatory recycling, etc. Mr. Cimonetti recommended Article I be written so voters can understand it. He asked if $6,600,000 is all the cost (plus the grants). Mr. Moody said it is for the scope of the work to be undertaken. Mr. Cimonetti asked if the $6,600,000 represents more than capital costs and whether operations costs are included in this. Mr. Moody acknowledged there are some operations and some labor costs. Mr. Cimonetti asked how long the communities will be paying wages under the bond. He noted that it is not in the budget to pay for the labor source so it must be coming out of the bond issue. He stressed that South Burlington cannot bond for labor costs. Mr. Cimonetti also felt a cost is needed for Articles II and III. He asked if thought had been given to setting recycling apart from other issues so communities can choose a position just on recycling. Mr. Moody noted that unless there is a district-wide mandated program by July, the District can't get a 60% grant in aid. Mr. Flaherty also felt there should be a cost for Article III, noting that people often like the sound of something until they know the cost attached to it. Mr. Cimonetti agreed that costs need to be spelled out. Mr. Dinklage asked if $600,000 would be the absolute maximum for operational salaries in the bond issue. Mr. Moody said it would. Mr. Dinklage then asked if Mr. Moody was projecting that within a month of opening the landfill, user fees will cover operational costs. Mr. Moody said he hoped it would be less than a month. Mr. Hafter asked how the sludge facility will be financed. Mr. Moody said he didn't yet know. They are researching that. The facility will be designed to meet the needs of the communities that have a need and would allow for expansion when others have the need. Mr. Cimonetti asked when the host town agreement would be made public. Mr. Moody said as soon as it is approved. Mr. Dinklage asked what would happen if revenues didn't pay for the operations of the interim landfill. Mr. Moody said they would raise the fees. Mr. Hafter stressed that member towns still have to pledge a full faith payment of those bonds if there is a default. 5. Review of Meeting with Agency of Transportation regarding alignment studies for Lime Kiln Bridge; discussion of future planning process: Mr. Hafter said there are 3 options and the Agency of Transportation would fund which ever one the city chooses. Mr. Audette outlined the options: Option I: would rebuild the bridge on the present site changing the grade slightly and eliminating the "hump" that is there now. Option II: would bypass the current bridge and come out opposite the entrance to St. Michaels. Mr. Audette noted that Colchester wants to eliminate the current intersection as they have a lot of problems with it. This option would use some of the same road as the cogeneration plant. It would give the road a better line and bring the road behind the houses. Option III: would move the bridge 25 feet to the west. The problem with this is there is all ledge on the S. Burlington side and very little room between the quarry on the west and the proposed road. The benefit would be that the current bridge could be used as a bike path. Mr. Condos noted this option also creates a problem with site lines at the curve. Mr. Audette felt option 2, which would be a 1,000 ft. bridge, is the safest. Mr. Hafter said there is a go-ahead from the state to hire a consultant to answer all the city's questions. The bridge would be 90% state and 10% locally funded. The local communities would have to pay for the road. He noted the 1,000 ft. bridge has much more road in Colchester. Mr. Cimonetti said he felt the city should decide if it wants to take this level of responsibility from the State. He said the city might have to do planning with local funds instead of state funds. He felt the cost of archeological studies could be great. Mr. Hafter said planning studies would still be a 90-10% split. If the city hires a traffic consultant, the state will still pay 90%. He said he had a feeling there will be money to build this bridge. 6. Discussion of proposed environmental board rule #52 that would require a 5-1 match for prime ag development: Mr. Dinklage said he felt the Council needed to take a strong position against this as it would be disastrous for S. Burlington. Mr. Cimonetti added that Regional Planning and the League of Cities and Towns should also be asked to take a similar stand. Mr. Dinklage moved to direct the City Manager and staff to oppose in every way they can to proposed Environmental Board Rule 52 which would require a 5-1 match for prime ag development. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Review Zoning Board Agenda for 27 January 1992: Mr. Cimonetti questioned the tower being requested by Adelphia Cable. It was noted that this development had been passed by the Planning Commission. 9. Minutes of 16 December, 30 December and 6 January: Mr. Dinklage moved the Minutes of 16 December, 30 December and 6 January be approved as written. Mr. Cimonetti seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Sign Disbursement Orders: Disbursement orders were signed. 11. Legislative Update: Mr. Cimonetti said this week they would see the Agency of Transportation's 1 and 5 year programs. He noted the Transportation Board gave first priority to Exit 13. 12. Liquor Control Board: Mr. Dinklage moved the Council adjourn and reconvene as Liquor Control Board. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter presented a second class license application from Chittenden Cider Mill and a first class license request from Papa Ginos. Mr. Cimonetti moved to approve the two liquor license requests as presented. Mr. Condos seconded. Motion passed 4-0, Mr. Chittenden abstaining. Mr. Hafter then presented a catering request from WVW Co. to cater an open house at Pete's Trailer Mart on 25 January from 2:30-11:30 p.m. Mr. Dinklage moved the Board approve the catering permit as presented. Mr. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hafter then presented an entertainment permit request from Bambino's for the group Naughty by Nature on 21 January till 10:30 p.m. Mr. Hafter noted Bambino's will provide its usual Friday night type of security for this event. Mr. Condos asked about problems at Bambino's saying he had heard from citizens and from residents of other communities. Mr. Hafter suggested having the Police Chief come in to discuss this. Mr. Chittenden moved to approve the request from Bambino's. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Executive Session: Mr. Condos moved the Board adjourn and reconvene as City Council in Executive Session to discuss personnel issues and real property acquisition and to resume regular session only to adjourn. Mr. Dinklage seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Regular Session The City Council returned to regular session. Mr. Cimonetti moved adjournment. Mr. Cimonetti seconded. The motion passes unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:55 PM. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.